Talk:Ottoman ironclad Avnillah/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: HerodotusTheFraud (talk · contribs) 23:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will tackle this soon. Feel free to message me on my talk page if you have any questions. Herodotus (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

This was a genuinely interesting article, and a well written one at that. I've taken the liberty of fixing a couple grammatical errors, as well as assembling a few comments:

• Might the commissioning of the ship as well or the early years of its service be expanded upon? The former is slightly sparse, and there is a chronological gap between in the latter the sea trials of 1870 and the mobilization of 1876.
  • I had another look through Langensiepen & Güleryüz, and there is a bit I can add. Unfortunately, in this era, most fleets kept their fleets out of service for much of the year, mobilizing them for a few months a year for training, and it seems the Ottomans didn't even do that.
• "...the only ironclads the Russians possessed there were Vitse-admiral Popov and Novgorod, circular vessels that had proved to be useless in service." It would be useful to elaborate upon why these vessels were useless/obsolete. Perhaps their age or design?
  • Added a bit on this.
• "the Ottomans inspected the fleet and found that almost all of the vessels, including Avnillah, to be completely unfit for combat against the Greek Navy. Many of the ships had rotted hulls and their crews are poorly trained" is a slightly awkward statement. There is an issue of present tense at the end which should be easily fixable, but there a few vague bits. In the first sentence (about the inspection), were the vessels inspected the ironclad fleet, or was the fleet still populated wooden-hulled ships? If they were ironclads, then rotting hulls might be an improper description of their state. Rusting, maybe? It also might be useful to elaborate on what the Greeks possessed that was superior, if possible.
  • Fixed the tense issue, good catch on the "rotten" issue - I think L&G must have been referring to other vessels, or perhaps they were a bit inaccurate in word choice. Also added a mention of the Hydra class
• Was there any combat involvement by the vessel or her sisters against the Greeks during the war?
  • Nope
• "The condition of the Ottoman fleet could not be concealed from foreign observers, which proved to be an embarrassment for the government" Were there any specific observers, observing nations, or incidents that might be mentioned instead of 'foreign observers'?
  • Added a bit on that.
• Stylistically, it might be better to add something in between the statements that "By 1900, the contracts were finally awarded, but Avnillah was not included in the program" and "In 1903, Gio. Ansaldo & C. received the contract to rebuild the ship, with work lasting until 1906," as the change from 'no contract' to 'contract awarded' is slightly abrupt.
  • Good idea - added "After further negotiations..."
• Why was the Avnillah disarmed in the decade after her modernization? And why did the Italian high command consider such an obsolete and weakly armed ship a threat, indeed, such a powerful threat that two powerful warships were sent to neutralize it? (the latter question is more a point of curiosity, feel no obligation to answer it in the article)
  • L&G don't say why, but presumably due to her woeful obsolescence - this is the dreadnought era, a 40-year old ironclad corvette is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. That said, the ship (probably) could still move, and in theory, could have attacked unarmed troop transports.

These comments are all really quite minor, and otherwise this is a very well done article. I'll try to read a few more of your pieces on her sister ships as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HerodotusTheFraud (talk • contribs) 01:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and if you would like me to make a template for you, I can do that as well. Best of luck, Herodotus (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

What would the template be for? Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the GA criteria template, where I can mark specifically what you passed and failed on. But seeing as I'm going to pass it in a moment, it seems quite redundant. Herodotus (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looks good! I've taken the liberty of passing it. Regards, Herodotus (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)